I do love Mr Christie--the guy comes across as one who tells it like it is--and with facts to back up his assertions--I dont agree with all his positions, but he is someone I can could easily support--Lets see how he does sorting out the NJ mess, but he is definitely a force to be reckoned with.

And Allie--your comments demean yourself--which sets the bar very low.

Theoretically we are paying him to be the executive who intermediates between the two political parties to reach consensus on matters of import to the nation as a whole. Theoretically the chief executive of the country represents all of the citizens, not just those with whom he agrees.

The role of chief executive is difficult and not all are cut out for it.

Allie. Very intelligent comment regarding why Christie did not run. Just the sort of empathy we expect from our healing professionals. And of course Christie's weight disqualifies him from any opinions that do not comport with your own. Love the liberalism of progressives!

Well, Obama is not Christy. They're 2 very distinct personalities not even accounting for the State. Although, they're are many Christy like pols who came from Illinois. And, I, like you, think the Jersey demenaor is tough for some to accept. But, these are tough times and I think many who would normally be turned off by this personality might accept it now.

Could Obama have treated Congress the way Christie can knock heads together in the Jersey legislature?

He certainly could have called a meeting of the Supercommittee dozen, with himself presiding, and refused to adjourn until some solid progress was made. Remember, we've been constantly taught what an eloquent and persuasive and post-partisan leader Obama is.

Could Obama have treated Congress the way Christie can knock heads together in the Jersey legislature?

I don't think so. How does Obama threaten the Republicans in Congress? What can he take away that is so valuable that they would back down, but that he hasn't taken away already? I can't think of anything.

Besides, many of those members of Congress have plenty of power in their own right. And, many of them know that they will probably be there in Congress a decade after Obama is turned out of the White House for the pro-am golfing tour.

If presidents really want to get a deal done, they will get it done. It won't be pretty, but it will happen if he wants it to. Obama really didn't want anything done and the Senate dems provided him the cover.

As Mr Hayden rightfully observes, what Governors can do is considerably different than a President can do--I see no evidence that Mr Obama has any understanding of the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. The other two independent branches of government may be obstacles, but they have to be engaged. Mr Obama's (apparent) view of our constitution is woefully warped.

Allie--we have a succession of Presidents who apparently have some appreciation of separation of powers--Mr Reagan, as I understand, would regularly meet with Mr O'Neill over a drink at the end of the day. Some differences may just be amenable to good relationships formed informally. There is much to be said for maintaining informal relatationships.

Garage--because, perhaps, Mr Christie was principles enough to know he was elected to do a job, rather than view election to one office as a stepping stone to another office. Your comment is especially egregious.

DustBunny, you may be correct. I just put her on my horseshit screen. And, I always make up my own mind based on my own observations. Believe me..I'll be diligent. I am persistent, patient, and I don't miss anything. The fact that she backed down so quickly is how many bullies behave. But, it is not dispositive. I don't have the interest in researching the past. I'll just monitor from here foreward.

Obama voted 'Present' more than 130 times as a state senator as Hillary and others noted during the primary. If that was not a red flag, I don't know what else was. Yet, people like you voted for him. He is enjoying the perks of the job with none of the responsibilities. You get what you deserve but you drag down a lot of other people with your stupid vote.

RogerChristie is a big boy. He's mad because Obama was smart enough not to get involved in an obvious clusterfuck that was doomed before it started. There was never going to be a coming together between the two parties.

for those who believe Gov Christie's weight is an an issue, I would counter than Mr Obama's addiction to nictotine is even more issue--but those kinds of topics are imo so much bullshit.

It is the caliber of demonstrated leadership that I believe important. Mr Obama has failed miserably; Gov Christie has apparently signed on to fulfill his elective mandate--At the end of the day, I would go with Gov Christie.

What are we paying him for? Why, for the radiant benevolence of His countenance. Silly Christie.

Allie whined - "all that strength and chutzpah wouldn't get him any further with Congress than Obama's style got him."

Well, Allie, when your "style" is to snort "I won," when you command your minions to ram through a health care plan that, we were told, had to be passed so we could find out what was in it," then I can imagine the GOP throwing up roadblocks. None of which, I remind you, would have done a damned thing to stop Little Black Jesus, since his party had the congressional majority. If He can't even bully His party into submission, that's not the GOP's fault.

Roger - yes, Reagan did meet with the loathesome O'Neill for drinks, which is one of the many reasons I don't engage in Ronnie idolatry. O'Neill, after all, was the pantload who called Reagan "the evil in the White House" and who stabbed him in the back by promising budget cuts if RWR would agree to tax increases. Ron did, and like a typical Democrat, O'Neill went back on his word. Reagan should have had the IRS dull a full colonoscopic audit on the fat bastard.

Christopher in MA--I do take your point about O'Neills fecklessness and backstabbing--but at the end of the day it is Ronald Reagan who is remembered and Tip ONeill's only legacy is his chief staff Crissy Mathews--which legacy would you prefer?

President Reagan made the effort--O'Neill was a piece of shit--there are no monuments to O'Neill--only to Mr Reagan--and Chrissy, O'Neill's legacy has only a tingle in his leg.

This makes no sense. Republicans blamed the failure of the "gang of six" talks on Obama's invovlement and his eventual endorsement of their plan. Now they blame him for not getting involved?

News flash: Congressional Republicans are reflexively against anything Obama is for. If he'd gotten involved, they would have bashed him for trying to "force" them to accept additional revenues in the form of tax increases. We would've heard Christie saying something along the lines of, "Who does this guy think he is to butt into the Supercommittee's work like that? Aren't we paying you to do your own job?"

This is just another dumb partisan attack disguised as a Youtube-ready "Christie cuts through the crap" moment. People who can't stop slobbering all over Christie to look around and see that will never be able to understand the basic truth of the situation.

Yes Christie's act would have worked in DC. He would have been the outsider who came to town to get rid of the dead wood. And yes Garbage, he could arrive on a flatbed and then use it to truck out the 500 or so pieces of dead wood sitting in Congress.

Actually, the Republicans are against bad ideas. As it happens, Obama only possesses that variety. There is plenty of evidence that the president does little to mediate. By not getting involved he can duck responsibility. Momentarily.

Michael--as much as I dislike Mr Clinton's flaws (namely chasing pussy wherever he could find it)-I do agree that Mr Clinton was a consummate politician--and while I think very little of him as a human being, he at least had a good feel for politics--especially if the politicees where women.

And Roger, I understand your point completely. Reagan was a better man than I am. Had I been in Reagan's shoes after that, the only time O'Neill would have seen the Oval Office would be at the back of a tour group.

Ann Coulter made the same point a few days ago, in regards to the GOP not being willing to accept any new taxes as a deal - the Democrats have always lied and agreed to cut spending, but never have. For once, it seems the GOP has learned you cannot negotiate in good faith with them, so until there are real, actual cuts in place (not freezes, not reduction in rates or growth, but actual by-God cuts), the left can go pound sand.

Christie can be an effective thorn in Obama's side the way Sarah Palin can't. These barbs are much better from sitting governors. Perry also would be a more effective foil for Obama as a governor and not as a governor/presidential candidate.

RogerJ: On two occasions I have had the chance to interact with President Clinton and both times I found that I was completely taken by his charm and wit. Notwithstanding my bitter opposition to him as a President his persona is very powerful and I was mesmerized when I thought I might have been otherwise. He is clearly brilliant and intellectually engaging on the same level I have found Gingrich.

Michael--agree entirely--Mr Clinton, as I understand, has brilliant political skills--he can engage with any one and make them feel he is their partner--I do not, in the least, denigrate his skills as a politiian--may be the best ever--but those skills were squandered in his personal conduct--and at that level the skills are but a fart in a whirlwind. Sad to to waste the skills Mr Clinton had chasing his pecker.

You don't really believe the "regulation" crap do you? Consumer demand is the problem...

My God! Hilarious! Truly a view into the foolish leftist mind.

Why is there no consumer demand? Is it because consumers have no money? Why don't they have money? Is it because they don't have jobs or don't make enough money? Why would that be? Is it because there is a lack of providers of goods and services? Why is that?

Machine: Yeah, capitalists want to stall the economy so that they can win an election. Are you serious? I could care less who makes the economy grow. I make a lot of money in an up economy, not so much in the down times. As a lefty you have to ponder this conundrum you have created for yourself. We cannot be both greedy pig capitalists AND want the economy to tank.

he has an opposition party that actually wants the economy to fail...for purely political reasons... If they did, they would agree to all his tax increases. You're projecting what the Dems did to Bush in the Iraq war, which worked for them in 2006 & 8, but was utterly despicable. Yes, I'm questioning their patriotism.